Re: Options
agreed tim, except not all of us can live with boxes the size of basszilla. i think it all comes down to what size of box can you live with. also in 5.1 (noting that dvdwmth does not need 5.1) shouldn't all 5 channels be the same?
dvdwmth, i apologise for hijacking your thread. I did not mean any offense I was just hoping to raise the bar by adding 5.1 and WAF into the equation. I know the bar is already high enough but some of us have spouses and live in small apts.
from what i undestand the .1 channel contains LF effects information and that information is not the same as the LF information in the other 5 channels. of course one can drop the 5 woofers in the 5 channels and the .1 information would more or less (but not exactly) compensate for this. similarly if one were to compromise a bit more then we could also elimianted the 5 tweeters (esp if we are using fullranges like the Jordan JX92, Foste FX120, Visaton, Ciare, Audax etc.). then we need only 5.1 channels of power.
Tim Moorman said:
agreed tim, except not all of us can live with boxes the size of basszilla. i think it all comes down to what size of box can you live with. also in 5.1 (noting that dvdwmth does not need 5.1) shouldn't all 5 channels be the same?
dvdwmth, i apologise for hijacking your thread. I did not mean any offense I was just hoping to raise the bar by adding 5.1 and WAF into the equation. I know the bar is already high enough but some of us have spouses and live in small apts.
CeramicMan said:You should remember that the whole point of the .1 in a 5.1 system was so you didn't need 5 large woofers cluttering the room. ... There, now it's only 11 channels.
from what i undestand the .1 channel contains LF effects information and that information is not the same as the LF information in the other 5 channels. of course one can drop the 5 woofers in the 5 channels and the .1 information would more or less (but not exactly) compensate for this. similarly if one were to compromise a bit more then we could also elimianted the 5 tweeters (esp if we are using fullranges like the Jordan JX92, Foste FX120, Visaton, Ciare, Audax etc.). then we need only 5.1 channels of power.
Nuuk said:Let's face it, you are not going to re-create the sound of a large orchestra playing the 1812 Overture on small speakers! Even on large speakers, it's still a tall order.
my present speakers have 2 12" woofers, 2 6" midbasses and a tweeter per channel.
even using 4 12" woofers (2 channels) each with over 1cm linear one way Xmax i cannot hope to play the 1812 are anywhere near realistic levels. Even before these levels ae attained however some of my neighbours start complaining and the windows and some furniture start rattling.
AC/DC however is another matter. My ears give up before my speakers do.
My goal is to make a 5.1 system that can compete with my present stereo and to add a degree of difficulty to this the 5.1 system must have better WAF as it has to live in the living room.
using the same subs (4 x 12) and 5" fullranges looks like one option. The other option is a single 5" woofer and tweeter per channel.
but this thread is about classical speakers and the needs posted by dvdwmth not mine so lets return this thread to him.
I have a question about driver performance as it relates to dynamics.
Perhaps Im oversimplifying but If I understand what I've been reading correctly then linear distortion is a deviation from the original signals size and timing. This sounds like dynamics to me. If thats correct, where dynamics are concerned, is it better to have an inefficient speaker with good linear distortion or an efficient speaker with less ideal linear distortion. Lets assume that ampifier power is not an issue since I'll just be building IC amps anyway.
Perhaps Im oversimplifying but If I understand what I've been reading correctly then linear distortion is a deviation from the original signals size and timing. This sounds like dynamics to me. If thats correct, where dynamics are concerned, is it better to have an inefficient speaker with good linear distortion or an efficient speaker with less ideal linear distortion. Lets assume that ampifier power is not an issue since I'll just be building IC amps anyway.
Distortion
There are all manner of distortion components in a speaker. If you think of it as a motor with an cone attached, you can break it down into problems of an electrical nature related to the motor, and problems of a mechanical nature related to the cone and suspension.
Good dynamics to me is the ability to convey changes in amplitude(loudness), both small and large, realistically. So, its more about responding quickly to change.
This, too, is a amplifier related matter.
All very general and it depends on the kind of distortion, but if you start with a driver of low efficiency, say 83 dB, but good distortion measurements, the speaker should sound very good within its working range. If we use 10 % distortion as the maximum allowed for all of the various distortion components like rising VC inductance, shifting BL curves, non-linear suspension, etc., this very linear driver may exceed the 10% mark when driven to perhaps 100 dB in its midband, perhaps lower in amplitude on the extreme ends of the bandwidth.
Same example, but with a 90 dB driver, slightly less linear, and you may be able to reach say 105 dB within the working range of 10% distortion.
OK, so you're listening at 8 or 10 ft. away, the driver is playing at 85dB at the listening position, which is probably 97 dB (guess) at one meter, when there occurs a crescendo on the CD of 20dB - not uncommon on orchestral music. The peak is essentially flattened by the low efficiency unit, where the higher efficiency unit may still be able to manage.
There are other considerations, too. Take a low efficiency unit providing bass to your system and drive it hard. Look at the second and third harmonic distortion, like S. Linkwitz does on his site, and the second harmonic can be as loud at twice the frequency as the fundamental. So a low E guitar note at 41 Hz has an 82 Hz echo equally loud. So, what if there is something else going on at 82 Hz, but slightly lower in amplitude? It will be entirely masked by the distortion.
Tim
There are all manner of distortion components in a speaker. If you think of it as a motor with an cone attached, you can break it down into problems of an electrical nature related to the motor, and problems of a mechanical nature related to the cone and suspension.
Good dynamics to me is the ability to convey changes in amplitude(loudness), both small and large, realistically. So, its more about responding quickly to change.
This, too, is a amplifier related matter.
All very general and it depends on the kind of distortion, but if you start with a driver of low efficiency, say 83 dB, but good distortion measurements, the speaker should sound very good within its working range. If we use 10 % distortion as the maximum allowed for all of the various distortion components like rising VC inductance, shifting BL curves, non-linear suspension, etc., this very linear driver may exceed the 10% mark when driven to perhaps 100 dB in its midband, perhaps lower in amplitude on the extreme ends of the bandwidth.
Same example, but with a 90 dB driver, slightly less linear, and you may be able to reach say 105 dB within the working range of 10% distortion.
OK, so you're listening at 8 or 10 ft. away, the driver is playing at 85dB at the listening position, which is probably 97 dB (guess) at one meter, when there occurs a crescendo on the CD of 20dB - not uncommon on orchestral music. The peak is essentially flattened by the low efficiency unit, where the higher efficiency unit may still be able to manage.
There are other considerations, too. Take a low efficiency unit providing bass to your system and drive it hard. Look at the second and third harmonic distortion, like S. Linkwitz does on his site, and the second harmonic can be as loud at twice the frequency as the fundamental. So a low E guitar note at 41 Hz has an 82 Hz echo equally loud. So, what if there is something else going on at 82 Hz, but slightly lower in amplitude? It will be entirely masked by the distortion.
Tim
Hi dvdwmth - Here's my 2 cents worth. I run a project studio where I produce music of a variety of genres, but especially classical music and related acoustic styles. I struggled for some time to find monitors that would reproduce the broad tonal and dynamic range of orchestral music. I have to dissagree with a few things said in this thread. One, that low end is not important to symphonic music. One of the prime ingredients in an orchestral recording is the ambience of the hall. Large spaces have low modes which distinctly color the character of recordings made in them. You simply can't hear a space unless your speakers can reproduce low resonances, however subtle. You may also miss some low fundamentals in pieces by composers who use organ pedals as sub-bass instruments. Another essense of classical recordings is honesty of sound, accuaracy of reproduction of the live event. You can't experience that without a flat system that approaches the full range of hearing. I feel you also need a system that presents fundamentals and their overtones from the same location - full range drivers are the only speakers that can accomplish this. To me, crossovers that seperate overtones into tweeters may handle a rock ensemble ok but can fall on their faces on a wind quintet and often simply sound like grit. The other major problem you face is the interaction of your speakers and the listening space. Even if your speakers produce a good sonic image of a concert hall, your room will make it sound like it's in your room - confusing. There are many ways to work with those problems but it can be complex and expensive. My solutions were not too difficult since I don't listen to music on a sofa 12 feet away from my speakers against the opposite wall. I do all my auditioning in the near field. My speakers are placed so I get very little early reflection (thus reduced comb filtering, etc). I have given basic treatment to the corners of the monitoring end of my room to kill the most problematic bass modes. My system is PC based and includes:
Jordan JX92s drivers in small closed cabs, actively crossed over at 110hz to 8" peerless Subs in small closed cabs. Alesis RS150 reference amp for jordans, parasound for subs. With seperate cabs I can allign the cones precisely. These are similarly efficient speakers (not very!) and here's where I disagree with another statement above. This system is very sensitive to dynamics, not in any way limited in its dynamic response because of the speaker sensitivity. I have never heard as good a reproduction of orchestral music as it produces. The limits are that I listen at moderate volumes (by rock standards, still quite loud in forte passages) and the system is not intended for lounge listening. That said, the imaging is extremely good, the unity and cohesiveness of the timbres are excellent and the ability to pick out individual instruments in a thick romantic texture is remarkable. For me reality of the sound is the thing. Photo attached
Jordan JX92s drivers in small closed cabs, actively crossed over at 110hz to 8" peerless Subs in small closed cabs. Alesis RS150 reference amp for jordans, parasound for subs. With seperate cabs I can allign the cones precisely. These are similarly efficient speakers (not very!) and here's where I disagree with another statement above. This system is very sensitive to dynamics, not in any way limited in its dynamic response because of the speaker sensitivity. I have never heard as good a reproduction of orchestral music as it produces. The limits are that I listen at moderate volumes (by rock standards, still quite loud in forte passages) and the system is not intended for lounge listening. That said, the imaging is extremely good, the unity and cohesiveness of the timbres are excellent and the ability to pick out individual instruments in a thick romantic texture is remarkable. For me reality of the sound is the thing. Photo attached
Attachments
The room fixes the criteria for correct speakers for classical music.
My speakers sound fine in big rooms but small rooms.....
Small rooms don't have enough LF modes and they're not well distributed so they need more LF sources and this requires lots of subs. Practically, this means small ones and that should work because we can stash them away and the more of them we have the less loud we have to play them.
To avoid loud lateral early reflection - which spoils the spaciousness illusion - the mids and/or tweeters of main stereo pair should be highly directional. (Dipoles are good this way because although they're omnidirectional, their side radiation is down).
Linkwitz is right. Short reverb times of small rooms can't provide the illusion of spaciousness so we need rear speakers.
Classical music needs speakers with a bit of a dip in their response around 2 - 5 kHz so the nice harmonic information is not masked and the pyschoacoustical experience of "compression" is avoided.
Active crossovers are good because the system is less likely to run out of oomph with high dynamics and eq'ing is easier.
My speakers sound fine in big rooms but small rooms.....
Small rooms don't have enough LF modes and they're not well distributed so they need more LF sources and this requires lots of subs. Practically, this means small ones and that should work because we can stash them away and the more of them we have the less loud we have to play them.
To avoid loud lateral early reflection - which spoils the spaciousness illusion - the mids and/or tweeters of main stereo pair should be highly directional. (Dipoles are good this way because although they're omnidirectional, their side radiation is down).
Linkwitz is right. Short reverb times of small rooms can't provide the illusion of spaciousness so we need rear speakers.
Classical music needs speakers with a bit of a dip in their response around 2 - 5 kHz so the nice harmonic information is not masked and the pyschoacoustical experience of "compression" is avoided.
Active crossovers are good because the system is less likely to run out of oomph with high dynamics and eq'ing is easier.
Additionally, you aren't using these full range - so technically they aren't full range drivers. This lets you pick a very small driver, which helps with the top end.
My criticism of full range drivers earlier were primarily aimed at larger models with a whizzer cone. When used full-range both extremes suffer.
Posted by Tim Moorman:
Jeff Mai Post #39
I agree with you completely. I also believe that the owners of compromized systems adjust their musical tastes to the system, whether consciously or not. Ever notice how nobody plugs AC/DC or the "1812 Overture" in when listening to their full range drivers. Always seems to be the intimate jazz trio, or "little girl with guitar".
I know this will aggravate folks, but it is just an observation, and I have found myself doing it on occasion.
The realism of big orchestral dynamics, or the raw power of a full symphony, or an outrageous rock band are difficult to render without very serious design concerns and multiway systems.
Close as one can get simply and at low cost, is the basszilla or dipole arrangement, and even that will have some shortcomings.
Tim
I kind of agree with this. I think this is where the compromises of audio equipment really hit us. ie: I love loud music and home theater. If i want to hit 105dB at listening per DD guidelines, then I've got to hit 115 at 1M. There is almost no way I will do that with valves and esl's , which should do the classical, jazz, acoustic stuff better than the -conventional way-
The way my thinking is leading me is to this:
mmtmm with the tweet being hi sens like raven, mids being 'good' hi-fi like sea excel, s-speak etc. with the 2 outer mids doing .5 way for baffle step.xo at 200 ish to hi-sens pro bass or 2 x hi-fi bass(10") and then to sub (2 x 15" ) (4x15" for stereo)
That should do it,but the esl's single drivers will still do quiet stuff better in my opinion
Cheers,
Rob
Jeff Mai Post #39
I agree with you completely. I also believe that the owners of compromized systems adjust their musical tastes to the system, whether consciously or not. Ever notice how nobody plugs AC/DC or the "1812 Overture" in when listening to their full range drivers. Always seems to be the intimate jazz trio, or "little girl with guitar".
I know this will aggravate folks, but it is just an observation, and I have found myself doing it on occasion.
The realism of big orchestral dynamics, or the raw power of a full symphony, or an outrageous rock band are difficult to render without very serious design concerns and multiway systems.
Close as one can get simply and at low cost, is the basszilla or dipole arrangement, and even that will have some shortcomings.
Tim
I kind of agree with this. I think this is where the compromises of audio equipment really hit us. ie: I love loud music and home theater. If i want to hit 105dB at listening per DD guidelines, then I've got to hit 115 at 1M. There is almost no way I will do that with valves and esl's , which should do the classical, jazz, acoustic stuff better than the -conventional way-
The way my thinking is leading me is to this:
mmtmm with the tweet being hi sens like raven, mids being 'good' hi-fi like sea excel, s-speak etc. with the 2 outer mids doing .5 way for baffle step.xo at 200 ish to hi-sens pro bass or 2 x hi-fi bass(10") and then to sub (2 x 15" ) (4x15" for stereo)
That should do it,but the esl's single drivers will still do quiet stuff better in my opinion
Cheers,
Rob
jeff mai said:
Actually, they do real well from farther away - but nearfield does away with lots of issues. That was my point. If you don't have to listen to from far away this is a way to get the room sound out of it and hear the room that was recorded - desirable for orchestral music.
jeff mai said:
Well, that's picking nits a bit since they roll off pretty fast below 100 anyway. Full range drivers do not excell in the low end - they're not really meant to. So I agree with your second point - that's why I built this system as it is. In fact you do the mid and upper ranges of FR drivers (where they perform best) a favor if you take the low end out. The main point with these things is that they transition from mid to high without crossovers which, particularly passives, can build all kinds of problems into systems. I don't have experience with cheaper FR drivers. The Jordans excel.
Hey Rob,
Tough call on the mmtmm or wwmmt. Any of those big three-ways are mostly dominated by the crossovers, to my thinking. That is, all of the greatest parts do not necessarily make a whole. The real work is in the crossover. Plus, they get so expensive.
I might try a 12"(300mm) or 15" woofer(375mm)crossed low(200-300 Hz) to, say, a mid-90's dB 5" or 6"(150mm)at around 92-93 dB efficient, and your tweeter/ribbon of choice rolled in as high as possible, like 3K Hz or above. More efficient than that, if running tubes. Pick drivers with smooth response well above and below the crossover points.
I would not hesitate to use dipole W or H frame bass in lieu of a bass box, with active crossover to the mids. Bi-amping is great, and should be more common.
Tim
Tough call on the mmtmm or wwmmt. Any of those big three-ways are mostly dominated by the crossovers, to my thinking. That is, all of the greatest parts do not necessarily make a whole. The real work is in the crossover. Plus, they get so expensive.
I might try a 12"(300mm) or 15" woofer(375mm)crossed low(200-300 Hz) to, say, a mid-90's dB 5" or 6"(150mm)at around 92-93 dB efficient, and your tweeter/ribbon of choice rolled in as high as possible, like 3K Hz or above. More efficient than that, if running tubes. Pick drivers with smooth response well above and below the crossover points.
I would not hesitate to use dipole W or H frame bass in lieu of a bass box, with active crossover to the mids. Bi-amping is great, and should be more common.
Tim
dvdwmth said:
when we are talking about active systems (no passive crossovers) the sensitivity of individual drivers is not a critical issue AS LONG AS each driver in the system can perform WITHOUT compression over the range they are EXPECTED to cover.
Lets consider a "practical" 3 way system. W M T M W. Each W being 12" eacn M being 7" and a 1" dome T. Sort of what I use for stereo.
expected XO points will be 100-120Hz and 2000-2500Hz.
While 2 x 7" drivers have a linear one way volume displacement of 180cc (150cm2 x 2 x 0.6cm) the 2 12" drivers will have a linear one way volume displacement 880cc (440x2x1). About 5 times that of the 7". I dont have the calulation with me but one can calculate the max SPL attainable at say 30Hz and 120Hz for the 12" and 7" respectively and see which one would compress first.
Any boost in the bass from boundry reinforcement is MORE than compensated by the lower sensitivity of the ear to bass. Boost would in the order of 6-9db at best but the ear is 15-20db less sensitive at 30hz than at 120Hz.
One can "up" this system to a 4 way using 15", 8", 4" and tweeter and still have the same considerations. My guess is 2 15" woofers with total volume displacement of 1800cc will only produce a few more db at 30hz (assuming the sensitivities of the 15" and 12" are the same).
I downgraded to the 12-7-1 system from a system that used 2 18" JBL woofers mated to 2 8" Focal Neoflex midbasses and a Morel MDT33 due to WAF. The JBL 2245 (B460) cabs occupied too much room and my wife needed someplace to keep her shoes
Anyway when I downgraded I realised that I really did not miss that last few db of SPL. Both system can disturb the neighbours, albeit the JBLs could disturb the neighbourhood!
nonamekid said:
Another JX92 user! Great! Can I pick your brain? I am hoping to use 5 JX92s in a shallow wall mounted small sealed cabs of about 10 liters each. My typical use for this would be music (classical, jazz and rock) and HT. For the bass I have 4 audio concpets 12" woofers.
The Jordans would be driven by the AV reciever (Marantz SR7000) and the sub with a seperate sub amp. The sub XO freq is 100Hz (from SR7000).
1. should i roll of the Jordan drivers at all?
2. would the 12" woofers mate with the Jordans?
3. what kind of SPLs should I expect at 3m (10ft)?
Tim, Rob: It would make sense to check out Dunlavy's systems before building large WMTMW's
I tried th WMTMW config and was not impressed by the imaging. so my present config is WW - MTM with the 2 Ws side by side in a 18" tall box and the MTM stand mounted on the woofer box. The MWTMW required a rather large front panel. Using this config I get a narrower baffle. In fact since my W-W box is 3) wide I stood it on it side (so it was 30" tall and 18" wide) and listened to the system with the MTM sitting on the WW box (with no stand). I dont kow why but I prefered the present configuration better.
Hi N - I couldn't find much info about the Audio Concepts subs so I'm not real sure how they would mate with the Jordans. I think it's important that they have similar sensitivities, but otherwise with a low XO point and bi-amped you have considerable leeway - I like biamped systems. I'm a little confused about how you intend to use 5 drivers - two per channel and one center?
About the high end of the Jordans, Ted has a Zobel-like circuit with resistor and coil that is supposed to flatten out the response in the top end. I built them and tried them but ended up leaving them out. Not a big difference I thought. You may want to try it and see - it's partly a matter of taste and it's pretty easy to add in line EQ of some sort if you need to (though I try to keep the signal path as simple as possible). One thing you should realize is that the Jordan's highs are not as good off-axis as a good tweeter will be, so placement is important and your sweet spot may be tighter. Conversely, as a result they may not sound over-bright in an in-room type installation. Unless you have bad hard surface reflection issues in your room it will probably sound good.
Since it's based around a PC recording studio, I tested my system with measurement mic, tone sweeps, and spectrographic analyzer and found it pretty flat despite room modes. The whole room thing is really tough, so unique to each situation and system. You just have to see. I'd recommend at least doing the math and testing it with a tone generator to identify the modes clearly. I like acoustic ceiling panels for DIY room treatments - cheap, easy to build with and some perform extremely well acoustically. The manufacturer's specs usually list their sound performance - usually the more heavily textured, the better. Wall junctions, especially vertical corners, and vertical centers of walls are the main problem areas for bass modes which are usually the principal culprits in room problems.
Not sure what I'd recommend for the Jordan enclosures if in wall. Ted thinks in-wall is optimal and has a variety of designs posted here: http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/ which seems to be down right now, not sure why. As you can see in the picture I posted, I used the smallest cubes he has for these drivers. My subs are in closed cabs too. I like closed cab sound and the response seems flatter than with ported cabs. Not interested in trying to tease response out of a driver it doesn't want to do, especially when the subs are working the low end. BTW I think stereo subs are great. Despite the conventional wisdom about non-directionality of long waves, my ears told me different when I tried a mono sub in various locations and my sound came to life with stereo subs. Sorry, but not sure what you'd get for spl. Monitoring nearfield I have only been concerned that my system is loud enough up close. Since they are mildly inefflicient, you will need an amp that can put out some power without distorting itself - if you have enough power to drive 5 Jordans you should be pretty damn loud!
Not much help here but I think you're on a good path. I'm very enthusiastic about the sound of fullrange drivers actively crossed and bi-amped with stereo subs. To me, its a whole different world from the normal passive XO vented-box all-in-one speaker thing. I'm sure you can make it work in an open-room listening situation. Let me know how it works out.
About the high end of the Jordans, Ted has a Zobel-like circuit with resistor and coil that is supposed to flatten out the response in the top end. I built them and tried them but ended up leaving them out. Not a big difference I thought. You may want to try it and see - it's partly a matter of taste and it's pretty easy to add in line EQ of some sort if you need to (though I try to keep the signal path as simple as possible). One thing you should realize is that the Jordan's highs are not as good off-axis as a good tweeter will be, so placement is important and your sweet spot may be tighter. Conversely, as a result they may not sound over-bright in an in-room type installation. Unless you have bad hard surface reflection issues in your room it will probably sound good.
Since it's based around a PC recording studio, I tested my system with measurement mic, tone sweeps, and spectrographic analyzer and found it pretty flat despite room modes. The whole room thing is really tough, so unique to each situation and system. You just have to see. I'd recommend at least doing the math and testing it with a tone generator to identify the modes clearly. I like acoustic ceiling panels for DIY room treatments - cheap, easy to build with and some perform extremely well acoustically. The manufacturer's specs usually list their sound performance - usually the more heavily textured, the better. Wall junctions, especially vertical corners, and vertical centers of walls are the main problem areas for bass modes which are usually the principal culprits in room problems.
Not sure what I'd recommend for the Jordan enclosures if in wall. Ted thinks in-wall is optimal and has a variety of designs posted here: http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/ which seems to be down right now, not sure why. As you can see in the picture I posted, I used the smallest cubes he has for these drivers. My subs are in closed cabs too. I like closed cab sound and the response seems flatter than with ported cabs. Not interested in trying to tease response out of a driver it doesn't want to do, especially when the subs are working the low end. BTW I think stereo subs are great. Despite the conventional wisdom about non-directionality of long waves, my ears told me different when I tried a mono sub in various locations and my sound came to life with stereo subs. Sorry, but not sure what you'd get for spl. Monitoring nearfield I have only been concerned that my system is loud enough up close. Since they are mildly inefflicient, you will need an amp that can put out some power without distorting itself - if you have enough power to drive 5 Jordans you should be pretty damn loud!
Not much help here but I think you're on a good path. I'm very enthusiastic about the sound of fullrange drivers actively crossed and bi-amped with stereo subs. To me, its a whole different world from the normal passive XO vented-box all-in-one speaker thing. I'm sure you can make it work in an open-room listening situation. Let me know how it works out.
I still find that a large 3 way system, overall, provides the best compromise. For most people, a bass reflex low end, crossed over electronically to a midrange compression driver and horn, and then again to a tweeter (at 5k or higher), will do the job. This system will reproduce anything you want to feed it, whether it is classical or rock and roll. I recommend horns with 60 to 90 degree dispersion, which will minimise the room problem. I also agree that low frequency capability is very much needed for good classical music reproduction. The low frequency reverberation heard in the concert hall can have a suprising amount of energy. I also recommend equalization for the system. Bi-amping and system eq are the two most important secrets to achieving state of the art performance. I remember years ago when Sheffield Labs released thier D to D recording of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Not lond afterwords, I attended the Berkely Symphonys concert, where that piece was performed. I got 2nd row center seats, and was amazed at how similar the sound was to my home system playing the Sheffield Labs disk. That was when I really realized that my system was on the right track. While no loudspeaker system is perfect, a well designed horn system still has the best balance of possitive attributes, all things considered. I got caught up in the Absolute sound merry go round at one time, and sold that system I had then. I went through a miriad of different configurations after that, ending up with Magneplaner MGIII's. Regardless of the positive attributes all of the other systems I had in my living room, nothing ever equalled that bass reflex/horn system. The need for realistic dynamics cannot be overstated. If you want to listen to folk singers, thats one thing, but if you want to cover the Boston Symphony in a believable fashion, thats another. I finally came to my senses, and came back to horns, and have never been happier!
http://www.highefficiencyloudspeakers.com/Frequentlyaskedquestions.html
http://www.highefficiencyloudspeakers.com/Frequentlyaskedquestions.html
Efficiency has been mentioned by enough posters here that its almost a concensus.
So, putting fostex and horns aside for the moment, who makes high efficiency midrange drivers? Is it neccessary to look at pro drivers?
Im assuming that when people talk about "high efficiency" drivers they mean something in the range of 95db or higher.
So, putting fostex and horns aside for the moment, who makes high efficiency midrange drivers? Is it neccessary to look at pro drivers?
Im assuming that when people talk about "high efficiency" drivers they mean something in the range of 95db or higher.
dvdwmth said:
Line arrays are a good bet, although they do have some problems with path length differences at the ends of the array causing high frequency rolloff due to phase cancellation. That can be mitigated somewhat with frequency tapering such as using the array end drivers for baffle step compensation. Series-parallel the middle four drivers, use them full range, series-parallel the two bottom and two top drivers and throw in a hefty inductor in series to roll them off when the baffle step kicks in, and I think you'll see some fairly useful efficiency numbers.
I have that arrangement with some inexpensive PartsExpress 6" jobbies, and I can tell you the midrange levels are nothing short of astonishing even with these run full-range in a test box.
This might work well with the new Dayton Reference Series woofers up to about 2.5 kHz, so the experiment needn't be too expensive (I used Parts Express 299-304 - shipping was about half the price of the speakers!).
Francois.
There are two designs that are appealing to me right now that I think would work out decently.
The one I will most likely build is the Linkwitz prototype open baffle with the p21wo 20 on the midrange, the Vifa d25 or the d2745 tweeter, and optional dipole bass. The mid drivers aren't the best but a good compromise I think that will suit my budget better. They are 91db efficient and there is an option to build it as an MTM although Im not sure thats a good idea given the size of my room. Although linkwitz doesn't walk you through making them active, there is at least some guidance on his site. As an added bonus, Ive wanted to try a BR 3 way with the D27 and p13 with the minimal XO as discussed in the "reference project" thread that popped up a few months ago, along with one or two p21s. Building the linkwitz speaker gives me two of the three drivers to experiment with later .
The second is a horn two or three way. Im not sure about the details on this one yet. The selenium recomendations from hornlover are too pricey for me. I did promise someone I'd build them a speaker after we listened to a P.A. and he liked the sound. Maybe I'll use this to experiment. If anyone can recommend a midrange horn thats not too expensive Id be interested to know about it.
Thanks for all the input. Its been extremely interesting and informative. Ill try to document the process as I go.
The one I will most likely build is the Linkwitz prototype open baffle with the p21wo 20 on the midrange, the Vifa d25 or the d2745 tweeter, and optional dipole bass. The mid drivers aren't the best but a good compromise I think that will suit my budget better. They are 91db efficient and there is an option to build it as an MTM although Im not sure thats a good idea given the size of my room. Although linkwitz doesn't walk you through making them active, there is at least some guidance on his site. As an added bonus, Ive wanted to try a BR 3 way with the D27 and p13 with the minimal XO as discussed in the "reference project" thread that popped up a few months ago, along with one or two p21s. Building the linkwitz speaker gives me two of the three drivers to experiment with later
. The second is a horn two or three way. Im not sure about the details on this one yet. The selenium recomendations from hornlover are too pricey for me. I did promise someone I'd build them a speaker after we listened to a P.A. and he liked the sound. Maybe I'll use this to experiment. If anyone can recommend a midrange horn thats not too expensive Id be interested to know about it.
Thanks for all the input. Its been extremely interesting and informative. Ill try to document the process as I go.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.